Re: [AD] review timed-wait changes

["Peter Hull" <peterhull90@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:29 PM, David Capello <davidcapello@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Peter Wang <novalazy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  Question: should al_wait_for_event_timed() take an absolute timeout
> >  specification, or should we provide both?  Relative timeouts are
> >  convenient for one off calls, but absolute timeouts would be much better
> >  when waiting for multiple events in a loop, e.g.
> Could be convenient, anyway the relative-timeout is the more
> common option in all APIs. I think that we should provide both
> options. The absolute-timeout routine could be called
> al_wait_for_event_until() or something.
>
I agree there's no compelling reason either way but I think absolute
would make more sense, for example you could have this for your fixed
frame-rate loop:
float abst = al_current_time();
while (true) {
 abst += 1 / frame_rate;
 while (al_wait_for_event_timed(queue, &ev, abst)) {
   handle ev
 }
 /* time's up */
 update_logic();
 draw();
}

For relative we could double up the api with al_wait_XXX_for and
al_wait_XXX_until or use macros to convert relative to absolute (we do
use BPS_TO_TIMER etc in Allegro4 now)

Pete